Protestants and Holy Communion

[Luvtosew]

If Christ were not being literal, one could hardly be guilty of His Body and Blood…eating judgment upon oneself. It makes no sense to be guilty of the Body and Blood for unjustly partaking in a symbolic meal.

Well I think it does, when one is participating in the Last Supper if one is not worshipping Christ in their spirit and heart and living a sinful life then one should not engage in the Last Supper no matter what Church he is in.

Also Paul said that to people who were feasting (filling themselves with food while other didn’t get
enough) and they were getting drunk. He also said not to engage in the in the temple worship and then come and engage also in Christ’s worship. A man can not serve two Gods.

So indeed it makes all the sense in the world not to engage in anyones last supper if they are not truely worshipping Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

 

[ahs]

If Christ were not being literal, one could hardly be guilty of His Body and Blood…eating judgment upon oneself. It makes no sense to be guilty of the Body and Blood for unjustly partaking in a symbolic meal.

Well I think it does, when one is participating in the Last Supper if one is not worshipping Christ in their spirit and heart and living a sinful life then one should not engage in the Last Supper no matter what Church he is in.

Also Paul said that to people who were feasting (filling themselves with food while other didn’t get
enough) and they were getting drunk. He also said not to engage in the in the temple worship and then come and engage also in Christ’s worship. A man can not serve two Gods.

So indeed it makes all the sense in the world not to engage in anyones last supper if they are not truely worshipping Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

I see what you are saying, but how would a person be guilty of the “body and blood of the Lord”? If a person were overinduging, getting drunk, etc…they are guilty of gluttony, selfishness, and the like. Taking part in a symbolic meal while not really worshiping Christ in heart and spirit would make you guilty of a lie and perhaps irony. If this is only a symbolic meal, one could only be guilty of the bread and wine that is suppsoed to symbolize Christ…one would be guilty of mis-representing oneself. This is not what Scripture tells us though. Scripture tells us we are actually guilty of the “body and blood of the Lord”…eating and drinking “judgment” upon ourselves.

We can only be guilty of the “body and blood of the Lord” if what we are eating actually IS “the body and blood of the Lord”. If we are only eating bread and wine, then we would only be guilty of the bread and wine. Eating bread and wine unworthily (or in mis-representation of one’s Faith) is hardly an offense that would bring judgment upon oneself. Are we guilty of this everytime we eat a meal with out blessing it at the dinner table?

 

[ahs]

In other words, plese show me how I’d be guilty of the “body and blood of the Lord…[eating and drinking] judgment [upon myself]” if all I’m eating is bread and wine.

 

[Luvtosew]

In other words, plese show me how I’d be guilty of the “body and blood of the Lord…[eating and drinking] judgment [upon myself]” if all I’m eating is bread and wine.

Kinda like going to confession and not telling all your sins, or in your heart confessing a sin knowing your going to go out and do it again in two days. God knows the heart.

When you take the Last Supper you are saying I believe Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and you have put your faith in him as your life line, giving to him yourself and receiving him as your Lord and Saviour. Now if you don’t believe that or if you living in sin, then its a lie to receive as that is what you are proclaiming.

Paul was talking to people who were acting disgraceful , they were suppose to be there to worship the Lord, but they were there to eat and get drunk not for worship. Kinda like the OT Jews not worshipping from their heart.

 

[ahs]

Kinda like going to confession and not telling all your sins, or in your heart confessing a sin knowing your going to go out and do it again in two days. God knows the heart.

When you take the Last Supper you are saying I believe Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and you have put your faith in him as your life line, giving to him yourself and receiving him as your Lord and Saviour. Now if you don’t believe that or if you living in sin, then its a lie to receive as that is what you are proclaiming.

Paul was talking to people who were acting disgraceful , they were suppose to be there to worship the Lord, but they were there to eat and get drunk not for worship. Kinda like the OT Jews not worshipping from their heart.

So, does that mean thart I am also guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if I go to Mass in a state of mortal sin? When I go to Mass I also profess that I “believe Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and…put [my] faith in him as [my] life line, giving to him [myself] and receiving him as [my] Lord and Saviour…” I do this when I proclaim the Creed, the Mystery of Faith, and when I ask God for Spiritual Communion (when I am unable to receive Eucharist).

If I accept your explanation as it is, then it also applies to when I pray, because when I pray I tell God the same things that you say I profess when I participate in Eucharist. Does the Apostle tell us that if we pray unworthily that we are guilty of the “body and blood of the Lord”? No, he specifically tells us we are guilty of such when we “eat this bread ans drink this chalice” unworthily. So, there must be something different there to make the Lord’s Supper very much different from normal prayer or a profession of Faith.

 

[ahs]

Paul was talking to people who were acting disgraceful , they were suppose to be there to worship the Lord, but they were there to eat and get drunk not for worship. Kinda like the OT Jews not worshipping from their heart.

Right, yes! And if I go to Church to eat a lot of bread and drink alot of wine, I am guilty of gluttony. But Paul does not say we shall be guilty of gluttony. He says we will be guilty of someting far more serious. Why would we not only be guilty of gluttony if all it ever was is bread and wine? What’s the big deal with wanting to fill my belly and catch a little buzz if we’re just having a memorial service?

The fact that the guilt goes beyond gluttony tells us that there is something so very much more serious going on than just bread and wine to remeber the Lord.

 

[Luvtosew]

Right, yes! And if I go to Church to eat a lot of bread and drink alot of wine, I am guilty of gluttony. But Paul does not say we shall be guilty of gluttony. He says we will be guilty of someting far more serious. Why would we not only be guilty of gluttony if all it ever was is bread and wine? What’s the big deal with wanting to fill my belly and catch a little buzz if we’re just having a memorial service?

The fact that the guilt goes beyond gluttony tells us that there is something so very much more serious going on than just bread and wine to remeber the Lord.

They were quilty of not worshipping Jesus with their heart and spirit, they came for the food and wine, not to worship the Lord. Nothing about gluttony there, although they were acting like heavens. They were showing comtempt for the Church and the Lord by the way they were acting.

We are to examine ourselves before receiving the host, if your living a sinfull life , living in sin, then why even go to Church, you have turned you back to Jesus, we are to feel remorse for our sin and repent. As you know we are all sinners.

Church is for worship and the communion is for us to remember what Jesus did for us, part of the Church worship.

 

[ahs]

They were quilty of not worshipping Jesus with their heart and spirit, they came for the food and wine, not to worship the Lord. Nothing about gluttony there, although they were acting like heavens. They were showing comtempt for the Church and the Lord by the way they were acting.

Yes, so why does that make them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? If the body and blood of the Lord isn’t truly there, how are they guilty of it?

We are to examine ourselves before receiving the host…

Why? What’s so special about the host that we need to examine ourselves before recieving it? If it’s just a symbol, then it’s just bread…so why the fuss?

… if your living a sinfull life , living in sin, then why even go to Church, you have turned you back to Jesus, we are to feel remorse for our sin and repent. As you know we are all sinners…

Yes, yes. I’m a sinner and livign a sinful life…have turned my back on Jesus a time or two. I feel remorse for my sins, repent, and go to Church. So, now I feel fine about loving God again…now WHY does the Apostle tell me that I cannot partake unworthily without being guilty of Jesus’ body and blood? That doesn’t make sense. If I unworthily eat bread, then I’m guilty of mistreating the bread, not Jesus. I can’t mistreat something that isn’t there…and if Jesus isn’t in the bread, then I can’t be guilt of His body and blood. Sure, maybe I could be guilty of disrespecting His memory, or disrespecting what He came to accomplish…but I’m not guilty of His body and blood if they are not present for me to disrepect. There are many things I can be guilty of in eating a memorial meal unworthily…but if it’s not truly Jesus’ “body and blood”, I’ can’t be guilty of His “body and blood.”

… Church is for worship and the communion is for us to remember what Jesus did for us, part of the Church worship.

But I can remember Jesus at home while I’m mowing the lawn. I don’t need a memorial meal for that. I can look at a Crucifix and recall what Jesus did for me. Why do I need to eat at this particular Supper? And what am I hurting by eating unworthily if it’s just bread?

Well, if it’s just bread and I eat it without believing in Jesus, what guilt have I incurred? It’s just bread afterall. I’m only guilty of lying to myself and others by taking part in the meal. If I eat too much and disrespect the meal, I’m guilty of gluttony and guilty of mistreating bread. But I’m not guilty of Christ’s body and blood…unless His body and blood are present.

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes, so why does that make them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? If the body and blood of the Lord isn’t truly there, how are they guilty of it?

Why? What’s so special about the host that we need to examine ourselves before recieving it? If it’s just a symbol, then it’s just bread…so why the fuss?

Yes, yes. I’m a sinner and livign a sinful life…have turned my back on Jesus a time or two. I feel remorse for my sins, repent, and go to Church. So, now I feel fine about loving God again…now WHY does the Apostle tell me that I cannot partake unworthily without being guilty of Jesus’ body and blood? That doesn’t make sense. If I unworthily eat bread, then I’m guilty of mistreating the bread, not Jesus. I can’t mistreat something that isn’t there…and if Jesus isn’t in the bread, then I can’t be guilt of His body and blood. Sure, maybe I could be guilty of disrespecting His memory, or disrespecting what He came to accomplish…but I’m not guilty of His body and blood if they are not present for me to disrepect. There are many things I can be guilty of in eating a memorial meal unworthily…but if it’s not truly Jesus’ “body and blood”, I’ can’t be guilty of His “body and blood.”

But I can remember Jesus at home while I’m mowing the lawn. I don’t need a memorial meal for that. I can look at a Crucifix and recall what Jesus did for me. Why do I need to eat at this particular Supper? And what am I hurting by eating unworthily if it’s just bread?

Well, if it’s just bread and I eat it without believing in Jesus, what guilt have I incurred? It’s just bread afterall. I’m only guilty of lying to myself and others by taking part in the meal. If I eat too much and disrespect the meal, I’m guilty of gluttony and guilty of mistreating bread. But I’m not guilty of Christ’s body and blood…unless His body and blood are present.

Well its fortuante for you that the Cross is always in your mind, I know it is for me too, but some people its not, and well look at the Passover in the OT, God institued the yearly Passover so the people would remember what he did for them , freeing them out of slavery, and he wanted them to come together to eat and celebrate together, just like what Jesus did giving us the Last Supper.

Why would one even eat the bread or drink the wine if one didn’t bellieve in Jesus. He would not be a Christian.

anyway, if I went to another Church and they had open communion and they were Christians of course, and served communion in an respectable manner and I was with family or a close friend I would take communion. that is me. My niece said the Priest let her non Catholic Mom receive the host at her wedding. I haven’t ever been to a Protestant church service so it hasn’t happened yet, but like I said why not if done respectfully.

 

[ahs]

Well its fortuante for you that the Cross is always in your mind, I know it is for me too, but some people its not, and well look at the Passover in the OT, God institued the yearly Passover so the people would remember what he did for them , freeing them out of slavery, and he wanted them to come together to eat and celebrate together, just like what Jesus did giving us the Last Supper…

It’s good you bring this up. What was the requirement of being in the communion of the believers for the Passover meal? They had to eat the lamb…not just remember the lamb, but actually eat it. Does the Last Supper not bring the Passover to fulfillment? Is Christ not the Lamb?

Why would one even eat the bread or drink the wine if one didn’t bellieve in Jesus. He would not be a Christian.
anyway, if I went to another Church and they had open communion…I would take communion. that is me…I haven’t ever been to a Protestant church service so it hasn’t happened yet, but like I said why not if done respectfully.

That’s kinda’ a side issue…and this still does not explain why the Apostel tells us that, if we partake unworthily, we are guilty of the “body and blood of the Lord”. The body and blood…of the Lord. If the body and blood of the Lord is not there, how can someone be guilty of it?

 

[JonNC]

How can you say you are absolved from sin if you deny church authority? Diffrering with our position regarding the validity of your rituals means nothing. Jesus established one church with authority to forgive sins. Martin Luther also established a church [actually a denomination] with no authority…

Yes, Christ did, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we are both members by virtue of our Baptisms. I don’t deny Church authority to forgive sins.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Kinda like going to confession and not telling all your sins, or in your heart confessing a sin knowing your going to go out and do it again in two days. God knows the heart.

When you take the Last Supper you are saying I believe Jesus is my Lord and Saviour and you have put your faith in him as your life line, giving to him yourself and receiving him as your Lord and Saviour. Now if you don’t believe that or if you living in sin, then its a lie to receive as that is what you are proclaiming.

Paul was talking to people who were acting disgraceful , they were suppose to be there to worship the Lord, but they were there to eat and get drunk not for worship. Kinda like the OT Jews not worshipping from their heart.

Not exactly. That may be how it is in the non Catholic denominations but not in the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox for that matter. I think the poster you quoted was making a distinction between the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the non Catholic idea of a symbolic practice. But Paul’s words are pretty specific that if you eat and drink the Lord’s Body and Blood unworthily then you are literally damning yourself to eternal hell. That is exactly what occurs in a Catholic or Orthodox church when one receives the Body and Blood unworthily. That is, with mortal sin on their soul. That is an awesome punishment if the Eucharist is only a symbol. Of course, in a non Catholic denomination that lacks the authority to consecrate the Eucharist any communion service is merely symbolic. But it was not that way in the early church. The renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, wrote:

“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Indeed he is correct. He goes on to say:

“Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

The Ignatius he refers to is better known as Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop of that city after Elvodius. Ignatius, in his own words wrote:

"“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Note the date, 110 AD. Also note that Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John who wrote the gospel which in chapter 6 contains the discourse on the Eucharist. It is both logical and reasonable to think that Ignatius received this teaching along with all the other teachings from the Apostle John. Thus this is a long standing teaching in the church that predates protestantism by over a millenium.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Well its fortuante for you that the Cross is always in your mind, I know it is for me too, but some people its not, and well look at the Passover in the OT, God institued the yearly Passover so the people would remember what he did for them , freeing them out of slavery, and he wanted them to come together to eat and celebrate together, just like what Jesus did giving us the Last Supper.

Why would one even eat the bread or drink the wine if one didn’t bellieve in Jesus. He would not be a Christian.

anyway, if I went to another Church and they had open communion and they were Christians of course, and served communion in an respectable manner and I was with family or a close friend I would take communion. that is me. My niece said the Priest let her non Catholic Mom receive the host at her wedding. I haven’t ever been to a Protestant church service so it hasn’t happened yet, but like I said why not if done respectfully.

People have been trying to tell you why not, but you refuse to listen. If the priest at your niece’s wedding knowingly let a non-Catholic receive the Body of Christ, he was in error to do so, but perhaps he didn’t know that she was not a Catholic. There are priests who are not holy, you know. Unfortunately these priests do our Church no service when they do things like this.

Do you believe that YOUR OWN feelings trump what the Church tells us to do/not to do?

 

[Luvtosew]

I’m out of this conversation, I gave my opinion as a RC, which differs from most on here. The thing is we are all different. There is not one mold. I am not trying to change anyones mind, but it has gotten carried away. I responded to the topic and I understand people disagree with me and thats fine. But I won’t continue to discuss s our differences, as I feel attacked for having a different opinion . Thank you.

I will trust a Priest, they know what they are doing, if we can’t trust our Priest then who are we suppose to trust.

 

[PJM]

=Luvtosew;9133309]As a RC I do not believe John 6 has anything to do with the Last Supper, I do love that
chapter as Jesus spells out clearly what we must do to have eternal life.

Believe is the majic word.

I believe in the Real Presence but substantial , not physical.

My freind it has EVERYTHING to do with the LAST SUPPER. Why do you think it does not?

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Not exactly. That may be how it is in the non Catholic denominations but not in the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox for that matter. I think the poster you quoted was making a distinction between the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the non Catholic idea of a symbolic practice. But Paul’s words are pretty specific that if you eat and drink the Lord’s Body and Blood unworthily then you are literally damning yourself to eternal hell. That is exactly what occurs in a Catholic or Orthodox church when one receives the Body and Blood unworthily. That is, with mortal sin on their soul. That is an awesome punishment if the Eucharist is only a symbol. Of course, in a non Catholic denomination that lacks the authority to consecrate the Eucharist any communion service is merely symbolic.

The Ignatius he refers to is better known as Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop of that city after Elvodius. Ignatius, in his own words wrote:

"“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Note the date, 110 AD. Also note that Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John who wrote the gospel which in chapter 6 contains the discourse on the Eucharist.

:clapping:

This is again why I point the posters back to the Manna in the Desert context.
Notice how Ignatius immediately fixates on the issue happening there – corruptible vs. incorruptible food.

DRV:

Exodu 16:15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another: Manhu! which signifieth: What is this! for they knew not what it was. And Moses said to them: This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat.
Exodu 16:16 This is the word that the Lord hath commanded: Let every one gather of it as much as is enough to eat; a gomor for every man, according to the number of your souls that dwell in a tent, so shall you take of it.
Exodu 16:17 And the children of Israel did so: and they gathered, one more, another less.
16:18: And they measured by the measure of a gomor: **neither had he more that had gathered more; nor did he find less that had provided less: but every one had gathered, according to what they were able to eat. **
Exodu 16:19 And Moses said to them: Let no man leave thereof till the morning.
Exodu 16:20 And they hearkend not to him, but some of them left until the morning, and it began to be full of worms, and it putrified, and Moses was angry with them.
Exodu 16:21 Now every one of them gathered in the morning, as much as might suffice to eat: and after the sun grew hot, it melted.
Exodu 16:22 But on the sixth day they gathered twice as much, that is, two gomors every man: and all the rulers of the multitude came, and told Moses.
Exodu 16:23 And he said to them: This is what the Lord hath spoken: To morrow is the rest of the sabbath sanctified to the Lord. Whatsoever work is to be done, do it; and the meats that are to be dressed, dress them; and whatsoever shall remain, lay it up until the morning.
Exodu 16:24 And they did so as Moses had commanded, **and it did not putrify, neither was there worm found in it. **

All these complaints being repeated in the thread have an example in the OT regarding the manna. (Whatever it is, and no one seems to know!).
Whether one receives worms or bread depended on how one obeyed the word.
Rotting was miraculously induced by disobedience; or shall we say, preservation was miraculously procured only through obedience. Neither the time, nor the amount is what allowed the devil to corrupt the manna, rather – it was refusal to listen (ob-durate, vs. obey) which brought on the penalty; and it was the priest-prophet Moses who held the act punished, or freed.

St. John’s command and understanding of the OT texts is far clearer than that even of St. Paul; Ignatius is an excellent example of that understanding being brought out in a teacher who could draw both from the Old and the New as a faithful scribe.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I’m out of this conversation, I gave my opinion as a RC, which differs from most on here. The thing is we are all different. There is not one mold. I am not trying to change anyones mind, but it has gotten carried away. I responded to the topic and I understand people disagree with me and thats fine. But I won’t continue to discuss s our differences, as I feel attacked for having a different opinion . Thank you.

I will trust a Priest, they know what they are doing, if we can’t trust our Priest then who are we suppose to trust.

The Church, the Magisterium and the Pope. Any individual priest might be misguided. Not saying that all of them are, but we have to be discerning in these matters, and know what the Church has always taught. Giving the Lord’s Body and Blood to non-Catholics is strictly forbidden. For Roman Catholics, receiving in any other church is also strictly forbidden (except in the Eastern Orthodox churches, and then ONLY for very grave reasons). There is no argument with this. WE may all be different, but the rules of our Church do not vary. We either obey or we are in dissent.

 

[RyanBlack]

The Church, the Magisterium and the Pope. Any individual priest might be misguided. Not saying that all of them are, but we have to be discerning in these matters, and know what the Church has always taught. Giving the Lord’s Body and Blood to non-Catholics is strictly forbidden. For Roman Catholics, receiving in any other church is also strictly forbidden (except in the Eastern Orthodox churches, and then ONLY for very grave reasons). There is no argument with this. WE may all be different, but the rules of our Church do not vary. We either obey or we are in dissent.

Do you include the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East in your category of Catholics? I ask because it is not strictly forbidden for them to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church permits them to receive.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Angel!

…the problem is that many times Priest and Religious are taking their own personal views and spousing them with Church Teachings… unless it is brought to the attention of the Bishop, ArchBishop, etc. there’s little that the Church can do…

And I would expect my bishop to do nothing; at least, that’s been the general trend with respect to far worse cases than what my parish priest said.

yet, even when errors are grafted onto genuine Doctrine the Church does not expediently cut off the person/s committing such errors (Luther and all that came before and after including the Nuns that continue to side with anti-Catholics); it is up to us, the insignificant and lowly members, to light a fire under our Priests, Religious, Bishops… the Pope to bring to light the issues… as Christ’s Disciples we are called to be sentinels (the first line of defense) so that the people of God may be warned of any danger.

Too many times all we do is wait for the smoke to clear… :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

I have suffered many times waiting for the “smoke” to clear; but unless I lit a literal fire – I doubt I could move the local priests. In fact, the other one I know was rather hostile and underhanded with reprisals even when I DIDN’T try to light his fire – but was forced into a very shallow no-win situation by his own actions (directly against his bishop’s, I might add – and he even accused the bishop and the archdiocese of being evil to my face, while attempting intimidation…many years ago, and I’m glad it’s long over…)

I know that it is wrong to receive communion after mortal sin, and even after a perfect contrition; but I don’t know the gravity of it when perfect contrition is involved. All the council of Trent says on the issue is that perfect contrition requires a firm resolution to go to confession as “soon as possible”. But that’s an open ended problem – A protestant may not be invited to confession by Fr. Jim (dunno, I’m not a protestant to be able to test the issue.) and therefore “as soon as possible” may be a LONG time off around him! On the other hand, perhaps it isn’t.

I can’t exactly go bothering the Bishop about a Fraudian slip of the tongue on Fr.'s part !. Those who disobey, again, are only guilty of Mortal sin if the three conditions persist.

Is this not, however, how it shall be with Fr. If he has abused the Eucharist?

Luke 12:42 And the Lord said: Who thinkest thou is the faithful and wise steward, **whom his lord setteth over his family, to give them their measure of wheat in due season? **
Luke 12:43 Blessed is that servant whom, when his lord shall come, he shall find so doing.
Luke 12:44 Verily I say to you, he will set him over all that he possesseth.
Luke 12:45 But if that servant shall say in his heart: My Lord is long a coming; and shall begin to strike the men-servants and maid-servants, and to eat and to drink and be drunk:
Luke 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not: and shall separate him and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers.
Luke 12:47 And that servant, who knew the will of his lord and prepared not himself and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luke 12:48 But he that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

If I don’t REALLY know what the master is about, why ought I beat Fr. ?
Look twice, strike once.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have made something of a contentious statement that I think bears looking at by Catholics a little closer.

It is true that when a non-believer or Catholic (even if baptized) receives the Eucharist – that Jesus is present; But I have said that all they can take away from him is bread and wine;

I’d like to point out why I said this – and to invite some examination of doctrine.
The Eucharist has a purpose. The name itself is either “Good gift” or “Well thanked”.
We know that the real presence only lasts for about 15 minutes (or so) once consumed. (and we are speaking about reception of Eucharist – and not theft of it from the church, and prolonged events…)

Jesus himself is no longer able to suffer, that one should say he can be murdered (again). Yet St. Pauls expression is “they crucify to themselves”.

The purpose of the Eucharist is a reciprocal relationship (Grace/charis); and it allows all (men and women) without sexual union to become one Flesh with Christ.
There will be no marriage, nor giving in marriage, nor even POLYGAMY with one husband (Jesus Christ); For the institution of the Eucharist is the remedy to the issue of sexual reproduction being tainted with Original sin, and limited in how it may lawfully be applied. This is how heaven can be likened to marriage, in purity, of a multitude to ONE man.

I am thinking in a way which is somewhat marriage oriented and in the genera of popular opinion about marriage; eg: Where often I hear the words “I’m looking for the ONE for me.” As if there is only one mate, one spouse, possible for someone to marry and be happy with. (I don’t subscribe to it, but there is a yearning which I’d like to note that is somehow fulfilled in a true marriage.)

Some marriages are Null, some are fornication, some are illicit, and these often disintegrate back into the single state. Just so the Eucharist once received improperly also dis-integrates back into normal food. The Eucharist IS true food in both the spiritual and the physical sense; and something DOES happen when it is received – but something more happens when it is received well.

I’m not sure how to express the thought I have which is so persistent. But I do want to affirm something; Each Eucharist is given with a person in mind. When the wrong person comes along and takes what is not theirs, they may well delay reception of it by a person to whom it is meant.

I’d like to hear what people think of St. Pauls words “Guilty of the body and blood” of the Lord in light of what I am proffering; I am of course, as usual, not offended if you contradict me. But what of SyCarl who claims to receive it?

Shalom.